DENMARK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Johannes Grove Nielsen, Camilla Søgaard Hudson, Lars Rosenberg Overby and Malthe Hersom Kløft, Bech-Bruun
• the technical management and crew of the ship should have initiated a procedure to discover the reason for the vessel’s propulsion issues upon dropping anchor; and • the owners had not ensured that there was a prop - er safety management system onboard the vessel. It should be noted that several other claimants were also involved and had filed claims in the fund, but these had not disputed the owners’ right to limit its liability. The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court’s decision The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court found that the ship-owner was entitled to limit its liability under the rules of global limitation. In reaching this decision, the court firstly underlined that a deviation from the provisions regarding limi - tation of ship-owners’ liability requires a claimant to substantiate that the person who has caused the loss or damage must, at a minimum, have done so with gross negligence and with an understanding that the relevant damage was likely to occur. Further, due to the origin of the regulation of ship- owners’ liability, the court is bound by the principles of international conventions in their interpretation thereof. As the claimants had not substantiated that the own - ers had acted with gross negligence, and with an understanding that the damage was likely to occur, the owners were not prevented from claiming limita - tion of liability. The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court was seated by a legal judge and two expert judges, who partly disagreed on the reasoning for reaching this conclusion. The judges agreed that the captain and the ship’s crew were guided by the belief that there must had been something wrong with the machinery due to the history of the ship’s engine. Therefore, they developed a kind of “tunnel vision”, and this was the reason for the failure to consider other possible rea - sons for the ship’s lack of propulsion.
However, the expert judges found that the captain’s response to the vessel’s lack of propulsion following the incident could not be considered grossly negli - gent. Such reasoning was not accepted by the legal judge, who found that the captain had acted in breach of good seamanship. Thus, the legal judge found that the captain had acted grossly negligently, but that the actions of the captain could not be associated with the owners. While the decision of the Danish Maritime and Com - mercial court in this case does not invoke new legal standards, it cements some of the fundamental prin - ciples when dealing with ship-owners’ liability and the right to limit liability. The court’s decision sets in stone that a ship-owner’s right to limit its liability under the global limitation rules cannot at the outset be deviated from, unless the ship-owner has caused the damage through gross negligence and with an understanding that the damage was likely to occur. The court also underlined that the actions of the crew and captain do not correlate with the actions of the ship-owner. Thus, it is not sufficient to break the limita - tion of liability to substantiate wrongdoing on the part of the crew and captain. Consequently, any claimant seeking damages from a ship-owner and claiming limitation of liability under the global limitation rules is under a heavy burden of proof, should they wish to object to the ship-owner’s right to limit its liability. Burden of Proof in Respect of Carriers’ Liability for Cargo Damage Due to Temperature Deviations In 2025, the Maritime and Commercial court ruled in relation to four cases revolving around cargo dam - age resulting from temperature deviations. While a thorough analysis of all the judgments would not be appropriate for this article, important points when dealing with temperature deviation cargo claims fol - low. Legal grounds in respect of liability for cargo damage claims As with other cargo damage claims, a carrier is sub - ject to Sections 274 and 275 of the Danish Merchant Shipping Act, which inter alia implements Article 3 of the Hague-Visby Rules, under which the carrier is liable for damage to the cargo while under the care of
233 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook